Posted on 10/25/2006 6:42:36 AM PDT by DredTennis
In a television interview last weekend, President Bush said Social Security reform was "still alive" and again declared that it would be one of his top goals when the next Congress convenes. Of course, that's what Bush said right after the 2004 election. And despite pushing the issue hard and personally campaigning for it around the country–60 cities in 60 days in early 2005–the idea's beta version never really took off with the American people, and no legislation was ever submitted. So, what are the chances of reform happening in a Congress that will almost certainly be less hospitable to Bush than the current one?
Ask any veteran Washington hand, and you'll certainly get a skeptical response. "Bush has fought the good fight on this issue," says Charles Gabriel, political analyst for Prudential Securities, "but he wasn't able to get it done when he had enhanced political capital after the 2004 election." Gabriel thinks that the White House will have a tough enough time just getting Congress to reauthorize fast-track trade authority next year, much less starting a revamp of perhaps the most politically sensitive federal program in existence.
... In Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's first speech after being confirmed in the post, he spent a good chunk of his time advocating entitlement reform. "I have always tried to live by the philosophy that when there is a big problem that needs fixing, you should run toward it, rather than away from it," Paulson said in an August 1 address at Columbia University. "That is one of the reasons I decided to come to Washington, and that is the reason I admire the president's political courage and willingness to address entitlement reform."
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
To be elligible for Social Security, you have to have worked a number of qualifying quarters...for most it's 40, it used to be 13, which is curiously about the number that most people on SS now had to have worked....That wasn't a lot of working time if you ask me....I digress......What worries me is the one illegal that is young that becomes legal through whatever means, and then brings his whole damn extended family here (they can do this, and they do). For every elderly person in the family it's a trip to the SSA to see if whatever time they worked in Mexico is good nuff to qualify here...they're called reciprocal agreements and the US has them with a bunch of countries.... Voila, you got an old Mexican who is legal by virtue of his recently legal illegal status living of the fat of the land....ain't that nice?
You've identified yourself as a globalist.
Naw, never said I wanted it. Called it like I saw it.
actually I did say I wanted it but only because a modern western power cannot stay powerful if it doesn't grow the population. Technology necessitates we find a culture of fertile females who will procreate. Technology necessitates it because technology has made western woman mostly barren unless by choice they become fertile.
The main reform will be some type of indexing (taxing) SS depending on how good your other retirement is. Sort of like was done with Medicare.
And that got me thinking. Was it wrong to annex Hawaii and purchase Alaska? Globalist stuff, no? We are globalists and our wealth and future is tied up in seeing a sucessful global Walmart, McDonalds, Home Depot and the like. These are our invading force. If they can hit their numbers, people who invest heavily in their 401K's can retire someday instead of working until they drop. We are tied at the hip with sucessful globalist policy. We will be hurting if our wealth is revalued as a result of corporate retreat from the world, something our competitors dearly want to happen.
1. Make it voluntary.
2. Let the recipient designate where the funds are invested.
3. Link benefits to monies paid in. If there's an insurance portion, separate it from the retirement portion.
if they are making $40,000 per year (which is not low income) they will be paying a lot less than $40k in taxes they will always be a drain on the economy. if low wage mexican workers were truly good for an economy Mexico would build a fence to keep them in Mexico.
That is exactly the WRONG thing to do. That would turn SS into more of a welfare program than it already is. The correct thing to do is completely separate the accounts of individuals so that each individual's SS benefit is directly linked to the amount that they "invested" over their working lifetime.
Means-testing is simply another layer of socialism added to what is already a redistribution scheme.
Thats assuming they just don't seize American owned possessions. What are we going to do about it, our war machine depends on products built in China. Plus I wouldn't fight for the North American marketplace. I'd fight for America, not for some international marketplace.
Means testing is a way to back out of a universal program to a smaller, more ;imited one. You obviously want more government than I do. I am appalled by the idea the the goverment is moving toward forced saving.
I don't think this is true, at all. "If you make over a certain amount per year, and it's not a large amount by any means, you can't collect SS." One think that irks me is to see that talk shos activist rhapsodizing about his $1500 monthy Social Security check and read he and Marlo thomas sold their house in Conn for $75m.
How on earth can you equate being opposed to means testing as "wanting more government"? You're saying the exact opposite by promoting the idea that someone's benefit from SS should be linked to anything other than what they paid in. You want to steal from those that earned and paid in the most and give it to others. That's socialism.
If you're appalled by the idea of forced savings, then why are you even supporting social security in the first place? It IS forced savings. Realistically, it should be abolished. Short of that, if I'm going to be forced to save, then I should have all rights to that savings. You're advocating forced savings, but with the stipulation that only the 'select' should have benefits. Social Security is not, nor was it meant to be welfare.
Well, yes. You made the point much more eloquently than I did. I guess I just assume most people on this forum can think logically, but sometimes I'm surprised.
Since we have all been paying into SS, your proposal to means test at this late date would come at the expense of those those thrifty souls who scrimped and saved to have a little more, on top of SS, at the end of their lives. It would punish them for saving. I don't think that is good policy, it would encourage irresponsible financial practices.
You are selectively changing the vocabulary to fit your bias. Social Security is a social insurance program, not a savings program. Surely, you know that the money you pay is not saved but is used to pay current benefits. Realistically, I don't see Americans deciding to abandon care of the elderly poor whether or not you like it. People with high incomes should calculate whether they want to pay higher taxes or keep the money and invest it. If they prefer the second option, their own benefits will be lower.
People like you are so smug about your virtues that you deserve to be hit by a bus and spend the rest of yout life paralyzed and dependant on the good will and generosity of others.
Next time around, the strategy should be all-out attack. Put up our plan to shift to investment accounts and hammer the dems for wanting a 50% tax increase or a 30% benefit cut. The accusation has to be made, and forcefully. It is, first and foremost, true. It is also the only way to smoke the 'rats out of their holes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.